TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The end of the petrodollar marks the first step towards eliminating the dollar as the reserve currency. This will have significant economic consequences and we need to be honest about it. The Russians have greatly benefited from this situation. The actions of the Washington politicians, including Mr. Romney, have all failed and backfired. They are shameless frauds.

Speaker 0 argues that while global focus is on Venezuela, Mexico, Cuba, and Colombia, Donald Trump quietly put Canada in the hot seat, presenting the Venezuelan operation as an opening salvo against the British empire. He frames Trump’s actions as not about Maduro alone but as a broader assault on imperial structures. Speaker 1 discusses the perceived death toll from drugs and asserts a real number of 300,000, noting drugs entering primarily through the southern border and also through Canada, implying this is part of a wider systemic issue. Speaker 0 notes that mainstream headlines focus on familiar targets, while the Toronto Globe and Mail editorially warns that Venezuela’s fate is a warning to Canada. The New York Times is described as framing this as another regime change operation from the Bush era that will split the MAGA movement, with Marjorie Taylor Greene contributing to that narrative. The Democratic Party is said to be shrieking about Trump’s actions, with some calling for impeachment. Former British MI6 head John Bolton is cited as recognizing that the operation is not a regime change. Speaker 0 and others present the view that this is a surgical strike against the British empire’s irregular warfare and the nexus of narcotics trafficking, terrorism, and the London-centered banking system. Susan Kokinda introduces herself as someone who has tracked offshore banking since the 1970s and claims this is the first time someone is taking on that system, namely Donald Trump, urging viewers to engage with Promethean Action for deeper analysis. Speaker 2 clarifies the big picture: there is not a war against Venezuela, but a war against drug trafficking organizations, arguing that the largest oil reserves are controlled by adversaries of the United States and misappropriated by oligarchs, including in Venezuela. The speaker emphasizes that the target is oligarchs and drug trafficking organizations, not socialism or communism. Speaker 0 connects oligarchs and drug trafficking with the British empire, describing Canada as run by the empire’s central bankers (notably Mark Carney) and as a major political outpost in North America used for drug trafficking, illegal immigration, and terrorism. This frame contrasts Trump’s actions with the cartels and highlights Canada’s role as part of the broader imperial apparatus. Speaker 3 (Sir John Soros) cautions against calling it regime change, noting Maduro has been abducted and taken to the U.S. to stand trial, but saying the army remains in power and the regime’s legal structures persist. He acknowledges the operation is not the same as Iraq’s regime change and notes Trump’s reluctance to deploy large-scale ground forces. John Bolton adds that Maduro has been removed from power, but the regime remains, and there is ambiguity about Trump’s thinking regarding Machado. Speaker 0 reiterates that this is not regime change but irregular warfare, with the United States pushing back against the empire’s rules-based order. The narrative argues that Trump is targeting the offshore banking system that finances terrorism, cartels, and the destruction of sovereign nations, including the London-centered financial network and its secrecy jurisdictions established in the 1960s. Prominent voices, including Tom Luongo and Crypto Rich, are cited to support the view that the British empire’s financial system and the rules-based order have long protected nonstate actors, NGOs, and cartels, and that Trump’s actions represent breaking those rules to defeat the imperial system. The piece frames the operation as the United States taking on irregular warfare and challenging the offshore financial framework that underpins global illicit activities, including narcotics trafficking and terrorism. Bottom line presented: Trump has launched a major offensive against the city of London’s offshore banking system and has targeted Canada as part of this broader strategy, signaling a shift from conventional regime-change thinking to irregular warfare against imperial financial and geopolitical structures.

The speaker discusses the energy dynamics between Ukraine, Russia, and Europe, highlighting Gazprom's dominance. They delve into the economic impact of NATO, the privatization of Russia in the 1990s, and George Soros's involvement in regime change operations. The narrative touches on Boris Yeltsin's subservience to the West and the manipulation of the 1996 Russian election.

The discussion centers on claims that the CIA has long been involved in Venezuela, has enabled drug trafficking, and now seeks a visible foothold in the country to counter Russia and China. Speaker 0 argues CNN’s report that the CIA will establish a foothold in Venezuela is emblematic of a duplicative pattern: the CIA has supposedly enabled the drug trade for decades, so the attack on Venezuela cannot be about drugs if the CIA is involved. They cite Kevin Shipp, a CIA whistleblower, who said the CIA has been involved in Venezuela since at least the Cartel of the Sun, run by a general who was a CIA proxy and helped reconstruct Venezuela’s intelligence service to penetrate the government. The general cited is General Ramon Gulen, described as running narcotics and creating and running the Cartel of the Sun. The Cartel is portrayed as a pretext used by the Trump administration to stage attacks and operate around Congress, with the CIA behind past secret dealings tied to it. Speaker 0 then references a 60 Minutes piece from the 1990s reported on by mainstream media that allegedly showed the CIA collaborating with Venezuelan National Guard generals who moved tons of cocaine into the United States. The discussion moves to John Kerry, who led the Contra Cocaine Investigation in the mid-1980s, seeking to determine US government involvement in the contra drug trade. The Reagan administration resisted, stonewalled the Senate, and monitored the probe. The HITS report (the CIA inspector general report authorized under inspector general Frederick HITS) is described as concluding in the late 1990s that while the CIA did not officially participate in cocaine trafficking during the Contra War, it knowingly maintained relationships with and protected numerous contra-linked individuals and organizations involved in the drug trade when operationally useful, to keep the contra war alive and to maintain US objectives in Central America, even if it meant enabling and protecting drug lords. It also states the CIA hid this from Congress, contributing to drugs entering the United States. The Iran-Contra connection is summarized as arms to Iran generating cash to fund the Contras, with the same network tied to cocaine trafficking, implying a single pipeline of influence and criminal activity. The speakers discuss media coverage and relationships with locals in Venezuela, questioning the claimed “relationship-building” as a cover for coercive activities, given sanctions that harm locals. They criticize the notion that the CIA is simply building positive ties, suggesting instead a pattern of disruption and control. The dialogue then shifts to geopolitics: Venezuela reportedly traded oil with BRICS outside the petrodollar since at least 2017, which is framed as undermining US global oil hegemony. A recent move to settle oil transactions in yuan is mentioned, with a snide remark that the CIA’s presence in Venezuela aims to prevent any free-trade diversification away from the petrodollar. The claim is made that the CIA’s objective is to prevent alternative global trade arrangements and maintain US influence by blocking competition from Russia, China, and BRICS members. Speaker 3 adds that the CIA’s actions align with a long-standing pattern of intervention, suggesting that the agency’s open, unapologetic approach reflects a broader strategy of tension, where a third of the population would support such actions, a third would oppose, and a third remain indifferent. They reference Operation Mockingbird and the presence of CIA-linked figures in media, including Mike Pompeo as a Fox News contributor, arguing that mainstream outlets act as channels for the deep state’s messaging, with information often flowing from the CIA to outlets like the New York Times. In sum, the discussion argues that US intervention in Venezuela is less about drugs or democracy and more about strategic counteraction to Russian, Chinese, and BRICS influence, with a long history of CIA involvement in drug trafficking and media manipulation. The speakers invite audience reactions on these points.

I was denounced by Boris Johnson as a tool of the Kremlin. He demanded $1,000,000 for an interview about Ukraine, which I refused. This is a shady money-making scheme that won't help Ukraine. Making money off war is immoral, and Boris Johnson is involved in it.

DuPont and Burisma are linked in a narrative the speaker claims has been studied for nine years by their research group. The speaker asserts that Burisma actually means “shadow created by one planet on another planet,” describing Burisma as a shadow or cover story used to justify and drive a sequence of geopolitical actions. The claim is that Burisma serves as a cover for Libya, Syria, Ukraine, the CIA’s overthrows, and the war that followed, which the speaker says was anticipated. The speaker identifies Pierre DuPont (spelled in places as Pierre Duplon) as a conduit to keep the war going, not for a short term but for a long, Iraq-type or Afghanistan/Vietnam-type war lasting fifteen to twenty years. They assert that this Burisma plan has been in place for ten years, beginning with the CIO overthrow of Ukraine. According to the speaker, Henri DuPont was a key agent, and Candace Owens has taken up this role with Pierre DuPont. A central claim is about who is in the war and who stands in the way of it. The speaker explicitly names Charlie Kirk as someone “in the way of the war.” They state that he started to talk against it and is about to begin a large college tour speaking against the war. The question posed is: who is in the way of the war, and what do people do when they get in the way of the war? The speaker says they are in Denver at the moment and plan to move on to Michigan and Tennessee, and then across the country. Their stated goal is to ask this question while bringing “the best people in citizen journalism” to tell the truth. The overarching message is a depiction of a coordinated long-term plan tied to Burisma and DuPont, designed to sustain a major conflict, with specific figures named as pivotal in either driving or opposing the war. In sum, the transcript presents a claimed nine-year research-based narrative linking Burisma as a cover for a CIA-backed Ukraine overthrow and a long-term war strategy, with Pierre DuPont as a key conduit, Henri DuPont as an earlier agent, Candace Owens connected to Pierre DuPont, and Charlie Kirk portrayed as a barrier to the war. The speakers outline a nationwide journalistic effort to expose these claims.

Checklist for summary approach: - Identify core claims, end-state, and strategic stakes across the dialogue. - Preserve unique or surprising assertions, including direct phrases where pivotal. - Exclude repetition, filler, and off-topic asides; focus on moving arguments. - Translate nothing (content is already in English); present claims as stated, with minimal interpretation. - Do not insert opinions or adjudicate truth; report claims exactly as presented. - Target a concise, coherent 388–486 word summary. Speaker 1 asserts that the globalists—described as a "globalist neocon elite" on both the Hill and in the White House, plus elites in Europe—want to see BlackRock "take over Ukraine" to strip its resources and turn it into a subjugated state for the broader agenda. They also want to see Russia destroyed, arguing the war has never been about Ukraine but about what can be done to destroy Russia. Russia is depicted as weak, with references to earlier contemptuous assessments like "Russia is Spain with a gas station." The speakers contend Moscow had legitimate concerns about Western actions in Eastern Ukraine and NATO on its border; they claim Washington ignored those concerns and installed a hostile government in Kyiv in 2014. They say President Trump attempted to listen but was surrounded by loyalists who "took an oath of obedience" but who ignored his orders. The outcome foreseen is a serious war that could become regional or global, with the claim that the globalists are losing. When the ground dries in June, a "massive Russian offensive" is anticipated, and much of what is called Ukraine would be swept away, especially the Kyiv government, which the speaker claims serves elite interests rather than the Ukrainian people. Speaker 0 pivots to the petrodollar, noting Putin’s outreach to Saudis and Xi, suggesting that moving away from the petrodollar would undermine U.S. borrowing and living beyond means. Speaker 1 reframes the war as now financial as well as military. The BRICS alliance is described as expanding—"81 additional members"—and moving to a currency backed by gold, whether a single currency or a basket. This, they argue, would undermine the dollar and signal grave trouble for global finance, driving the globalists to desperate measures. They warn that once Western Ukraine falls, there would be pressure to deploy U.S. forces into Poland and Romania, with possible Romanian participation, leading to a full-fledged war if intervention occurs. Putin is described as having exercised tremendous restraint and patience, avoiding a war with the West; he supposedly does not want conflict with the West, but if Western forces involved themselves near the Polish border or beyond, “the gloves will come off.” The dialogue also asserts Russia’s strategic calculus: Putin warned against advancing the border to Russia, sought equal rights for Russians in Eastern Ukraine, and refused to surrender Crimea, which was seen as a bulwark against a U.S. naval base. Biden’s goal is framed as regime change and dividing Russia, with oligarchs such as Koloboyski and Soros alleged to be part of this globalist project. The plan is described as a strategic defense with an economy-of-force approach pushing toward the Polish border, setting up the threat of a protracted, multi-year conflict. The United States’ military recruitment is depicted as underprepared, including Marines being encouraged to recruit illegals.

The speaker raises concerns about Russia's use of Iranian oil tankers to violate US energy sanctions. They criticize the Biden administration for allowing Iran's "ghost fleet" of tankers to grow from 70 to 300, without imposing sanctions. This has enabled Iran to increase its oil exports, funding the regime and the war in Ukraine. The speaker questions why the administration hasn't sanctioned the tankers, as Russia is now using them to aid its aggression in Ukraine. The response from Speaker 1 acknowledges the symbiotic relationship between Iran and Russia and mentions efforts to break it up. However, the speaker argues that the administration has not effectively enforced oil sanctions, allowing funds to flow to Iran for attacks on Ukraine.

In 2000, Iraq switched from trading oil in US dollars to euros, leading to tensions with the US. After 9/11, the US falsely claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Today, the US is at odds with Russia and China for not using US dollars for oil. The speaker predicts a future conflict in Ukraine, warning of lies to justify war. They caution against media manipulation and urge vigilance.

Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, is described as a “cokehead” and a manufactured political figure. He is said to have been manufactured by Igor Kolomoyski, described as a Ukrainian Israeli Cypriot oligarch who owns OnePlusOne Media in Ukraine. OnePlusOne Media is claimed to have financed and produced the TV show Servant of the People, which hired Zelensky, a well known actor with zero political experience or even political interest, to play the role of President in the show. The show ran from 2015 to 2018 and achieved huge ratings, with claims that there was disproportionate propaganda and PR for the show, some saying it was completely astroturf. Viewers who know Ukrainian and watched the show described it as mildly enjoyable but not a big deal. It is asserted that Kolomoisky created a political party called Servant of the People, mirroring the TV show, and their candidate was Zelensky. The claim is that Kolomoisky financed Zelensky to the point that Zelensky today is a billionaire. The speaker notes that not many actors are billionaires, implying Zelensky’s wealth is unusually high for an actor, and contends that Zelensky is the “finger puppet” of Kolomoisky. The narrative continues that Kolomoyski also financed Hunter Biden, to the tune of $50,000 a month plus additional benefits, in 2014, when Burisma, the Ukrainian oil and gas company, hired Hunter Biden to be on its Board of Directors at $50,000 a month. It questions who controls Burisma, asserting Kolomovsky is the same person who manufactured Zelensky as President of Ukraine. The speaker asserts that Zelensky and Hunter Biden are “spiritual cousins,” both bankrolled by the same man, Kolomovsky. It is claimed that both have serious drug addictions and both are intimately involved in Ukraine, with a contrast that Zelensky does not have a father who is President of the United States. There is a claim that the White House is freaking out over Ukraine, and that in Ukraine there are many secrets. The assertion is that “the more unsavory people in the Washington establishment” have used Ukraine as their private piggy bank, financially exploiting it and stripping it of monies and assets needed by the Ukrainian people. This is linked to Ukraine being one of the poorest countries in Europe due to corruption and Western exploitation. Hunter Biden’s $50,000 a month is highlighted, with a remark that $50,000 a year would solve the problems of four or five families in Ukraine, illustrating the disparity given Ukraine’s poverty. The laptop is invoked to mention a possible 10% kickback to the old man, Joe Biden. The speaker asserts that Kolomovsky financed Zelensky and Joe Biden, and suggests there are many others who financed Ukraine’s leaders to carry out “evil deeds,” asserting that the West is terrified the truth will come out in Ukraine.

After Russia invaded Ukraine, the Nord Stream pipelines exploded under the Baltic Sea. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh revealed that the US and CIA blew up the pipelines to stop Russian gas supplies to Germany. The US wanted to promote its own gas exports to Europe. The operation involved planting bombs during NATO drills and detonating them remotely. The destruction of the pipelines led to increased gas prices in Europe, benefiting US gas producers. The US government's massive financial aid to Ukraine is also questioned.

Speaker 0: Welcome to game plan. I'm Shivan Jan now. So far, there is only one winner in this war in West Asia, and that's Russia. Mind you, I'm not saying that this was acknowledged by the European Council president Antonio Costa. US Israeli strikes in West Asia, they have driven up the price of oil, strengthening the Kremlin's ability to fund its military campaign. Now in a sharp reversal from last year's policy of penalizing countries for buying Russian energy, US treasury secretary Scott Pessen said that The United States could unsanction other Russian oil to keep the flow of oil intact. And this is because the Strait Of Hormuz, the pivotal point from where this war is kind of converging, that is under complete Iranian control. Movement of ships has been blocked. Movement of oil has been blocked. It has shot up the oil prices, and the repercussions are being felt across the world at this point. Is the war proving to be a boon for Russia whose economy is dependent on energy exports? As the state of Hormuz gets blocked, Russia gets a free hand at selling its oil at rates that can be expounded without proper discounts as well. Is Putin the one winning in the war that US and Israel started against Iran? To discuss this with me on game plan is doctor Glenn Deesen, professor of international relations at the University of Southeastern Norway. Glenn, always a pleasure speaking with you. Thanks so much for joining me here. Trump and Putin, they held a call recently, the first time this year, and this was to discuss the discuss the ongoing hostilities in Iran. What do you think they would have discussed, and what kind of a role can Putin be playing in the ongoing war? Speaker 1: Well, I assume some of the things to discuss was obviously the the the extent to which The US and Russia targets each other because one of the things that the American media has been complaining about is the likelihood that Russia is providing intelligence to Iran for targets, but of course this is what The United States been doing for years and continues to do, that is give the Ukrainians targets to hit Russia. So I think there's a necessity to begin to discuss is appropriate and again what happens behind these doors, I don't know. But also of course there has to be some scaling back of the energy sanctions against Russia to bring this, the energy prices under control. As you suggest, they are now very much out of control. But I think also the main thing they've discussed is how to bring this war to an end because I think it's perfectly clear now that this US attack on Iran was a terrible mistake, and it appears that Putin would be the the main middleman who would might be able to bring an end to this war. But, again, it depends what can be done as what the Iranians will demand may be more than what the Americans can deliver. Speaker 0: Glenn, as you mentioned, Putin could perhaps be the main person to bring peace in this war. Putin has the highest chance of acting as peacemaker in West Asia. Is there anyone other than Putin at this point who can bring? Because just look at the optics of it. US starts a war, and I think ten days into it, he needs to make a call to Vladimir Putin to discuss that same war. How does it look for The US? Speaker 1: Well, they don't care for this, of course, but that it's similar to what to what happened with the war against Syria. That is, if you remember, back at president Obama's time, he had set these red lines, he were gonna attack Syria. It was quite obvious that this would be a disaster. So he went to the Russian president and he was able to get a deal through and which essentially took Obama's chestnuts out of the fire. So it was, you know, it it it is the reality or the optics of it isn't great given that The US has been fighting a proxy war for years against Russia, but but, know, at some point, you have to put the optics aside. Who who else would be in a position to help to negotiate this? I'm thinking, you know, perhaps China could be a middleman, but I think given that The United States, especially under the Trump administration, wants to improve bilateral ties with Russia, I I I think he's probably the best, yeah, the best bet. Speaker 0: Would it be fair to say that Putin is emerging as a winner in this ongoing West Asia war, which only seems to be expanding within the West Asian region? Speaker 1: Well, no. I think, yeah, to a large extent, I think that is correct because the energy prices are way up. The US have to scale back sanctions. The all the weapons which The US had intended to ship towards Ukraine to fight Russia is now being depleted. For European leaders, as you mentioned earlier on, to who aspire to prolong the war in Ukraine, this is an absolute disaster. And we'll see that countries that cut the energy ties or at least reduced energy ties with Russia at the best of American pressure, they of course have learned a lesson now as well that this was not a good idea that you don't necessarily put bet too much on a hegemon in decline, so countries who before paid discounts now may have to pay premium. We'll see that Iran, which I assume is getting some support from Russia sees this relationship improving dramatically. They're moving much closer, which is good for Russia because the Iranians always have some suspicions towards the Russians given well a long history they've had through the centuries of conflict. So all of this improves. You can also say that The Gulf States, the weakening of The Gulf States has also a big impact on weakening The U. S. Ability to restore its hegemony because what show what's obvious now is that the Gulf States are not getting protection instead they're becoming very vulnerable as frontline states and The US is no longer seen as that reliable. Well, if they're not going to bet their security on The United States anymore then they may not have that much pressure to sell their oil in dollars. You're not gonna have those recycled petrodollars coming back to The US, and suddenly the whole AI race with China looks a lot weaker as well. So I think across the board, a lot of things look good for Russia, but and there is a big but here, and that is I don't think that the Russians want this war nonetheless because the Russians, much like the Chinese, value stability and predictability. And what's happening in Iran now could again, if something would happen to Iran collapse, that would be a disaster for this Greater Eurasia initiative that is to integrate economies of Greater Eurasian Continent, but also this could spiral into a world war. So from this perspective, it's very dangerous and I don't doubt that the Russians therefore want to put an end to this war simply because I guess much like India, they don't want the Eurasian Continent to be too China centric, they would like to have many poles of power and this requires diversification. This means that the Russians need close ties with Iran, with India and other countries. So for the Americans to knock off Iran off the, you know, the chessboard, the greater Eurasian chessboard would be a disaster for the Russians. So, yes, I think they're prospering or benefiting from this, but they they do wanna put an end to it. Speaker 0: Understood. Glenn, let me just come to the Strait Of Hormuz. You know, the objectives of U. S. Behind starting this war, that has been questioned enough. Why did you start this war in the first place? Those are questions not just emerging, you know, globally. They're also emerging from inside The U. S. But if you look at what a win will actually look like for US, would it be the state of Hormuz? Like, which whoever controls the state of Hormuz is eventually who walks away as you know, walks away with the victory at this point because The US was looking for a change in regime. They mentioned it enough number of times. That hasn't happened and doesn't seem like it's going to happen. Is the state of Hormuz the winning factor now? Speaker 1: Well, I I I don't think any The US would be in a position to control this just given the geography. So The US obviously went into into this war with the objective of regime change. That was the goal. This was the decapitation strike, this was the hope of killing Khamenei and obviously it didn't work. I think it shouldn't have come as a surprise, but you know killing the leader of Iran only created more solidarity within the country. And also the idea that the whole armed forces would begin to disintegrate once they had been punished enough, also proven to be incorrect. So I think at the moment you see the American pivoting a bit. Some are talking about the Strait Of Moose that this should be a goal, others are saying you see a shift now towards saying well, actually what we really want to do is just degrade Iran's missile capabilities that they won't have this long range missiles. And again, you know, these are the kind of vague objectives which they can essentially declare victory today then because Iran has had many of its missiles destroyed. Also it launched a lot of its missiles at U. S. Targets which means that its missile stockpile has been reduced. So this should be a source of optimism when The U. S. Moves from this very hard line objective such as regime change and they shift in towards missiles, reducing the missile stockpiles or something like this. But the straight of our moves, I think, is beyond what what is reasonable. It's it will be too difficult. So I don't think they will But why push too hard on do Speaker 0: you feel it would be difficult if I were to just look at the bases that they have across West Asia? They have enough military might. Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, have their bases there. How difficult would it be to exert that military might over the Strait Of Hormuz? Speaker 1: Well, controlling it just means the ability to shut it down. Many countries would have the ability to shut down this narrow strait. The problem is that no one benefits from it, that is the Gulf States are hurt, Iran is hurt from it, The US and the global economy is hurt. So it becomes an exercise in self harm. The reason why the Iranians are doing this, the ability to shut down the Strait Of Hormuz is because The US has the ability to inflict a mass amount of destruction. It can go after civilian infrastructure, it can well, look what they've done to Tehran. It looks like, well, just, you know, the chemical warfare there. You've seen in terms of going after his fuel depots. They're going after the water supplies in Iran. You you see all these things. This is what America can do. Iran doesn't have that ability. They can't hit The United States. What they can do is cause economic pain. So, yes, I think The US and many of the Gulf States can also shut down the Strait Of Our Moose, but but but that's not that's it doesn't have any purpose. It doesn't have any reasoning. Speaker 0: Can they eradicate the Iranian control over the Strait Of Hormuz? I'm not talking about shutting it down, but just get rid of the Iranians from there and they then decide who gets to control and when it has to be shut and when it has to be opened and remained and kept open and secured. Can The US exert that kind of military might over the state of Hormuz to control it? Speaker 1: Then one need us to control a massive amount of Iran's territory, which is a huge territory with populated by 90,000,000 people. So this seems very unlikely and if closing down the Strait Of Hormuz would depend on very sophisticated weapon systems, will be one thing. But this can be shut down with drones which can be manufactured in apartments. It can be also shut down with small naval drones that is this essentially drone operated small torpedoes. There's it doesn't require a lot of high technology which means that The US can't take out very key infrastructure to prevent Iran from shutting this down, to force it to open. But with very cheap and easy to make weapons, the Iranians can shut it down and it's simply too much territory, too large population for The United States to shut down the these capabilities. So at some point, they're have to make peace with the Iranians and make it make sure it's in Iran's interest to keep the Strait Of Hormuz open because it is in their interest. The problem now is that Iran faces an existential threat. That is The US now threatens to destroy not just the government, but also the country. As Trump tweeted, we we will make it impossible for Iran to even rebuild as a nation. And this is what regime change means. There is no replacement government. This means the disintegration and destruction of Iran, a massive civil war which could cost hundreds of thousands of lives. So for them this is existential which is why they went to this great extent. They've never done this before because they never believed that they faced this kind of an existential threat. So if the war ends, the Iranians have no reason to shut this straight down. This is very horrible for them as well. So, no, I I don't think The US can control the straight or almost no one can control it completely because too many actors could shut it down. Speaker 0: Glenn, thanks so much for joining me here on game plan. Whether this war continues further, that only means and if it does, that's essentially what Iran is looking at because they're not capitulating. They're not giving up. They are taking a bad amount of beating. There's no doubt in that, but they are continuing with their counters nevertheless. And straight of hormones is their main play where they're exerting their pressure with whether it's mines, whether it's their own boats, whether it's their own military boats. Now energy experts have also warned that whether the Iran crisis proves a cure for Russia's economy, that depends directly on how long it lasts. But there is little to suggest that Iran is willing to capitulate that what we just discussed. They're inviting U. S. To continue the war on the other hand. That's what the statements from Iran suggest that we're waiting. Come on, on. Now in the midst of this, Russia is emerging as the winner as we just discussed. How long this lasts? It doesn't seem to be in the favor of The U. S. We'll need to wait and watch twelfth day and running. They expected it to last for about four to five weeks, whether it goes the distance or even longer. Let's wait. That was Glenn Deeson joining me here on Game Plan. Speaker 1: Thanks, Yvonne.

One name to watch is Victoria Nuland, who has a lot at stake regarding Ukraine, which I believe is one big money laundering operation. What Elon Musk has revealed is only the outflow of dollars. The full cycle of funding—where the money goes in Europe and how it flows back into the pockets of people in the United States—has yet to be demonstrated, but I am aware of it. I believe Trump and Elon will discover that people like Victoria Nuland will feel the pain as they are at the center of this. Zelensky is an actor with a great relationship with Putin. In the coming weeks or months, we will discover things about Zelensky that will upset the American people regarding money flowing back into the US and into the pockets of people in Washington DC. It will be ugly and involve the entire establishment.

Mario: Let's start with Venezuela. Do you think this is a strategy by Trump? Larry: I saw something similar back in 1988. The CIA was involved with trying to provoke Manuel Noriega into taking some action, so we could say we had to respond to set the stage for a military invasion, which I believe that in 2018, Donald Trump signed a finding authorizing a covert CIA action to get rid of Maduro. That attempt failed. And now the objective is to get control of the oil. That's the number one priority, with an eye toward the risk of a renewed Iran conflict and the prospect of shutdown of the Persian Gulf, and the need to have an alternative supplier. Ukraine defeating Russia was the plan, and Russia’s military is now around 1,500,000. Mario: What’s your initial reaction to Venezuela? I talked to John Kuriaki who said to read naval movements to gauge what the military plans. The buildup on the coast of Venezuela is significant. They’ve got 14, 12 warships, including the Gerald Ford. Do you think they are bluffing or this is a Trump strategy? Larry: It could be a bluff. I saw something similar in 1988. I was in the Central America branch, and the CIA’s analytical thrust was to provoke Noriega into taking action to justify a response and invasion. That happened in 1988. But that time there were US bases in Panama; Quarry Heights was full. Southern Command was there. Now Southern Command has moved to Miami, just near Southcom. Another issue: within the military, the concept of supported and supporting commands means the special operations command (SOCOM) would normally be the supporting commander, but here Southern Command would be subordinate to SOCOM, which is problematic because SOCOM cannot fight a conventional war. Delta Force, SEAL Team Six, and others are light infantry for raids, not mass warfare. So launching shells or sending ground forces won’t solve Venezuela; terrain is rugged and favors ambushes. If US troops ashore, body bags would likely exceed those from Iraq and Afghanistan. Venezuelans will fight, and insurgents from Brazil and Colombia could join. Decapitation strikes against Maduro could provoke an insurgency that the US would struggle to pacify. Mario: Could we see a decapitation strike like Israel against Hezbollah and Iran? Larry: Decapitating Maduro would still leave loyalists and other actors with weapons; an insurgency could erupt, and the US would be unable to pacify it. The real objective here is unclear. The State Department’s INL/INSCR programs have long documented Venezuela as a transit point for drugs; Trump claimed fentanyl is the issue, but most cocaine also goes to Europe. The 2018 Trump era mentioned the Trendy Aragua as a pretext to justify covert actions; I believe Trump signed a finding authorizing a CIA operation to remove Maduro, leading to Guaidó, but that failed. The broader agenda appears to be regaining oil influence and countering Russia, China, and Iran’s influence in Venezuela. Mario: Elaborate the agenda and strategy behind these strikes on boats out of Venezuela and Trump’s public acknowledgement of a CIA covert operation. What’s the strategy and intention? Larry: The objective is to restore oil control in Venezuela and reduce adversary influence. Maduro once aligned with the CIA, and Chavez/Maduro have maintained cordial relations with Moscow and Beijing. The US aims to curtail BRICS and reduce Venezuelan ties to Russia, China, and Iran, potentially moving Venezuela away from the dollar-based system. The theory that this is a message to Putin circulates, but if that were the aim, it’s a poor strategy given the broader geopolitical dynamics in Syria, Iran, and the Palestinian-Israeli arena. The US previously overpromised in the Red Sea and failed to secure freedom of navigation, signaling limited military capacity for large-scale campaigns. The objective of any Venezuela action must be concrete, otherwise it risks entanglement in an insurgency. Mario: Turning to general foreign policy under Trump. What about the national security strategy? Europe’s criticisms, and Trump’s approach to Ukraine—Witkoff and Kushner meeting Putin? Larry: The 2025 national security strategy signals change, but these documents are not blueprints; they’re guidelines. Europe is being asked to step up, while the US distances itself, arguing Europe’s resources and industrial capacity have diminished while Russia and China shift. Europe’s censorship and defense spending are under scrutiny. The US–UK intelligence relationship still lingers, but overall the West’s ability to project force is questioned. Russia and China’s relationship is deep and mutually reinforcing; the Rand Corporation’s earlier ideas that Ukraine would defeat Russia to force Moscow to join the West have not materialized. Ukraine’s fight has forced Russia to mobilize and shift front lines; casualty counts are contested, but Russia’s front has expanded with a larger force and higher attrition. Mario: What about Ukraine negotiations and Putin’s terms? Larry: Putin’s terms (as stated on 06/14/2024) are: Crimea, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Donetsk, and Luhansk permanently part of Russia; Ukraine must withdraw forces from those territories before negotiations begin. An election must be held in Ukraine with a legitimately elected president, potentially replacing Zelenskyy, and Russia would then talk to Ukraine. Russia’s stance treats these territories as non-negotiable; freezing lines is not acceptable to Russia. If negotiations fail, Russia is likely to maintain control over large parts of Donbas and southern Ukraine, potentially extending into Kharkiv and Odessa. Western military support is insufficient in scale to match Russia’s production; Russia’s oil revenue remains a significant portion of GDP, and the global south is pivoting toward BRICS, with Modi’s meeting signaling stronger ties with Russia and China. The strategic trend is a shift away from Western dominance toward a multipolar order. Mario: Larry, appreciate your time. Larry: Pleasure as always, Mario.

This war never should have happened. Russia tried to settle with terms beneficial to Ukraine and us, mainly keeping NATO out. Military contractors want new NATO countries because it forces them to buy weapons from specific companies like Northrop Grumman and Lockheed, creating a trapped market. We've committed billions to Ukraine, money that could have housed every homeless person in the US. Mitch McConnell admitted this money largely goes to American defense manufacturers, essentially a money laundering scheme. BlackRock owns these companies. The "loan" to Ukraine will never be repaid. The conditions include extreme austerity and the sale of government-owned assets, including its valuable agricultural land, to multinational corporations like DuPont, Cargill, and Monsanto, which are also owned by BlackRock. BlackRock even got the contract to rebuild Ukraine. They're doing this openly because they keep us divided and fighting each other.

After Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the Nord Stream pipelines exploded under the Baltic Sea, with suspicions of sabotage by Putin. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh revealed a US-led mission to destroy the pipelines, impacting European gas supplies. US opposition to Nord Stream 2 aimed to promote American gas exports. The US Navy's divers reportedly planted bombs during NATO drills to blow up the pipelines. The explosions led to increased gas costs in Europe, benefiting US gas producers. The aftermath of the attacks remains unresolved, with implications for European economies and US taxpayers. Next, the focus shifts to US aid sent to Ukraine.

So last year, The US ran a trade deficit with India of almost $46,000,000,000. Proof to president Trump, the relationship in his view is unfair. India imports most of its oil last year, almost 40% of its crude from Russia. Well, president Trump is saying India is helping Russia fund the war in Ukraine. Earlier this month, he accused it of not caring how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian war machine. India's prime minister Narendra Modi is defiant on all of this. On Monday, his ambassador to Russia said India will continue to buy oil from wherever it gets the best deal in order to protect the interests of its 1,400,000,000.0 p

The United States invaded Iraq in 2003 because Iraq started trading oil in euros instead of US dollars. After 9/11, the US claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and harbored terrorists, leading to the invasion. Currently, the US is facing potential conflicts with Russia and China for trading oil in currencies other than the dollar. The speaker warns of a possible future war in Ukraine orchestrated by the military-industrial complex, urging people to be wary of lies told to justify sending troops overseas. The speaker emphasizes the need to question media narratives and highlights the shift in US military focus from the Middle East to Eastern Europe.

Mario: Let's start with Venezuela. Do you think this is a strategy by Trump? Larry: I saw something similar back in 1988. The CIA was involved with trying to provoke Manuel Noriega into taking some sort of action. They could say, oh, well, we gotta go respond to this to set the stage for our military invasion, which I believe that in 2018, Donald Trump signed a finding authorizing a covert action by the CIA to get rid of Maduro. That attempt failed. And now the objective, get control of the oil. That's the number one priority. And I think it's being done with an eye looking forward, recognizing the potential risk. If conflict is renewed with Iran, prospect of the shutdown of Persian Gulf— Mario: Ukraine defeated Russia. Larry: Yeah. That was the plan. Russia's military is now around 1,500,000. Mario: Let’s talk Venezuela. What’s your initial reaction? When John Kuriaki suggested the best indicator is naval movements, and the buildup off Venezuela is significant. I’ve heard they have 14, twelve warships, including the Gerald Ford. Do you think they are bluffing? Is this Trump strategy? Larry: It could be a bluff. I saw something similar in 1988. I was in the CIA’s Central America branch. They tried to provoke Noriega into action to justify invasion, which happened in December 1988. What’s different now is the base infrastructure. In Panama, Quarry Heights was full; Southern Command was there. Southern Command has moved to Miami. The weaponization of the idea of a “supported vs. supporting” commander is reversed here: Southern Command would be subordinate to Special Operations Command. SOCOM cannot fight a conventional war; they’re light infantry, raids, hostage rescue. So the question is: what will the ships actually do? Shells into Venezuela won’t defeat Venezuela. Ground forces would require mass, and Venezuela is three times the size of Vietnam with rugged terrain that favors ambushes. If US troops ashore, you’d stack body bags far beyond Iraq and Afghanistan. Mario: Do Venezuelans have the will to fight Maduro? Larry: Yes. It will rally insurgents from Brazil and Colombia. If we decapitate Maduro, there are loyalists with weapons; an insurgency could follow, and the US would be hard-pressed to pacify it. The State Department’s INL/INSCR reports on narcotics note Venezuela as a transit point for marijuana and some cocaine, with fentanyl less central than claimed by Trump. The 2018 emphasis on Trendy Aragua looked CIA-driven. Trump reportedly signed a covert action finding in 2018 to remove Maduro, leading to the Guaidó fiasco; that covert action included some public diplomacy via USAID. The objective now, as you asked, is oil control and curtailing Russia, China, and Iran’s influence, with an eye toward BRICS. Mario: Could there be a decapitation strike on Maduro, and would someone like Maria take over? Larry: A decapitation strike could spark insurgency; the US would not be able to pacify it. The broader agenda seems to include a strategy to seize oil and reduce regional influence by Russia and China. Venezuela’s role as a transit point and possible BRICS alignment complicates any straightforward regime-change scenario. Mario: Moving to general foreign policy under Trump. The national security strategy (NSS) for 2025 signals a shift, but you question how binding NSS papers are. What did you make of it, and how does it relate to Ukraine? You’ve noted Trump isn’t serious about peace in Ukraine on some occasions. Larry: The NSS is a set of guidelines, not a blueprint. Europe is being asked to step up, the US distancing itself from Europe, and the strategic relationship with Europe is damaged by the perception of long-term reliability and sanctions. The document highlights China as an economic rival rather than an enemy; it criticizes Europe’s defense spending and censorship, and it frames Russia as less of a direct threat than before, though the reality is nuanced. The US-EU relationship is strained, and the US wants Europe to shoulder more of the burden in Ukraine while maintaining strategic pressure. Mario: What about Ukraine? Zelensky’s negotiation posture, security guarantees, and the Moscow terms? Larry: Putin spoke on 06/14/2024 with five Russian demands: Crimea, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Donetsk, and Luhansk are permanently part of Russia; Ukraine must withdraw its forces from those republics; there must be an election in Ukraine with a legitimately elected president (the Russians argue Zelensky is illegitimate for not holding elections); they suggest a successor to Zelensky and elections within 90 days. Freezing lines in Donbas is not accepted by Russia; the Russians claim further territory may be annexed with referenda. If peace talks fail, Russia is likely to push to occupy Kharkiv, Sumy, Mykolaiv, and Odessa, potentially Kyiv. Western support is insufficient to alter that trajectory, given Russia’s large artillery and drone production. The US and Europe cannot match Russia’s drone and shell output; even if they supply Tomahawks, escalation risks, including nuclear considerations, grow. Russia’s economy and war capacity remain robust, and the BRICS poles are strengthening as Western leverage wanes. Mario: What about sanctions strategy and Russia’s oil revenues? Larry: Oil remains a significant but not decisive portion of Russia’s GDP. The West’s sanctions are not enough to force collapse; Russia has endured the 1990s and remains resilient. BRICS cooperation and the shift to the Global South are changing the global order, with Russia and China deepening ties and reducing Western influence. The war in Ukraine has not produced a decisive Western victory, and the global south is moving away from Western-led sanctions, reshaping geopolitical alignments. Mario, it’s been a pleasure.

- "This is a war that should have never happened." - "The major thing they wanted was for us to keep NATO out of the Ukraine." - "March 2022, we committed a 113,000,000,000." - "it's not really going to Ukraine. It is going to American defense manufacturers. So he just admitted it's a money laundering scheme." - "And who do you think owns every one of those companies? Blackrock." - "Ukraine has to put all of its government owned assets up for sale to multinational corporations, including all of its agricultural land, the biggest single asset in Europe." - "500,000 kids almost. Ukrainian kids have died to keep that land as part of Ukraine." - "And then in December, president Biden gave out the contract to rebuild Ukraine. And who do you think got that contract? Lakhra."